Hee-hee! Expands his side business as a bookie.
I'd like 1500 gp on him coming back.
I'll give it three days.
Can we get the constitution amended again to put slavery back in. I mean, Paul the Apostle was all for it (Ehesians 6:5-9). I am tired of all the yard work.
Also, the fact that SOME of the Founders were outspokenly Christian (John Jay, Patrick Henry, et al.) says nothing of the ones who quite self-admittedly were Deists instead (Thomas Jefferson, et al.), or the ones who were what you could call CINOs ("Christians in Name Only," mostly because their wives dragged them to church). That's something of a detour, though, because the (varied) religious orientation of the Founders says nothing about the Constitution itself, which I've already covered.
That's not quite true Kirth. Most of the founders were Christians. Many historians have decided to lump Unitarians(which many founding fathers were) into the deist group, which they are NOT.
Can we get the constitution amended again to put slavery back in. I mean, Paul the Apostle was all for it (Ehesians 6:5-9). I am tired of all the yard work.
How do you do yardwork with no opposable thumbs?
How do you do yardwork with no opposable thumbs?
I can dig a mean hole.
Digging yourself a hole in a political-religious thread is not that significant an accomplishment.
At least I am in good company.
That's not quite true Kirth. Most of the founders were Christians. Many historians have decided to lump Unitarians (which many founding fathers were) into the deist group, which they are NOT.
... or the ones who were what you could call CINOs ("Christians in Name Only," mostly because their wives dragged them to church).
I'd strongly suspect that the last group I mentioned (the CINOs) were probably the most numerous then, as they are today.
|
That's not quite true Kirth. Most of the founders were Christians. Many historians have decided to lump Unitarians(which many founding fathers were) into the deist group, which they are NOT.
The Founding Fathers, regardless of their of religious backgrounds, were men of the Enlightenment. While they were often divided on the subject of God, most of them found comfort at the altar of Reason. I think a more accurate statement would be the Founding Fathers were associated with certain churches because that is what you did at the time. Whether they felt strongly about that faith is another thing entirely. Some certainly did, others obviously did not.
The entire purpose of the First Ammendment, and indeed the entire Bill of Rights, was to place limits on government's...
I'm saying that the government can not and should not force any religious dogma on anyone. And that also means that the people of America cannot use the law to force their religious dogma on anyone else. And that's exactly what the constitution supports and what the personal writings of the founding fathers support.
The "no religious test" statement in article six clearly states that religion should be a non-issue in government. As I clearly stated, it doesn't mean you can't be religious, it means you can't make a hiring decision based on any sort of religious test.
In both cases (article 6 and the 1st amendment) the purpose was not only to limit the government's power, but also to limit, to the point of exclusion, the power of religion in government.
It was not intended to say that religion has no bearing on government, as has been suggested.
I would say that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and other founding fathers clearly disagree with that point of view. Certainly Jefferson's statement that there should be a "wall of separation" seems to say that religion should have no bearing on government. John Adam's comment that the people of America should not be forced to pay even a "thruppence" in support of religion seems to say that religion should have no say in government.
Moreover, the moment you bring religion into government you are excluding part of society. A secular government in inclusive because it means everyone has the same rights and nobody, including the Christians, can have somebody else's religious dogma forced upon them via the force of law.
That's insane. It tells me the judge in the case lacks any form of common sense.How is urination any more indecent than say to men kissing in public? Urination is a natural process, just like for example breast feeding, you aren't going to say that breast feeding indecent are you? You don't like it, don't look, nobody is making you. Stupid puritans.You'll love this one -- guy at a Superbowl party here, long line for the restroom, too many Bud Lites, what do do? Guy goes in the back yard. Neighbor kid sees him. He's now a convicted sex offender: hard time in prison and permanent status on the list. In this country, he gets worse punishment than most murderers. So, yes, I'd say that legally-speaking, Americans do view urination as being far more indecent than men kissing.
Don't blame the judge. Sex offender status is automatic, and the judge has no power to withdraw it, nor is it possible to appeal. It is mandatory in all cases to which it can legally apply. It's not the judge's fault that the law mandates sex offender status for all eligible crimes.
Wow, resurrecting a completely useless two year old thread. Just wow.
Useless? I anticipate BATTLE. GLORIOUS BATTLE!
I, for one, never tired of this discussion. Prop 8 forever!
Tom Hanks! Mormons! Yeah, baby!
I, for one, never tired of this discussion. Prop 8 forever!
Tom Hanks! Mormons! Yeah, baby!
!
A foe has appeared! Roll initiative, knave!
I won't say that Mormons are un-American, but, in this case, they represent the ugly side of America, a side all those who adhere to the founding principles of this nation wish didn't exist and must be always vigilant for.
Oh boy. This thread. Here goes.
While I wouldn't say that Mormons are un-American (like that's an insult anyway) I think that what they did WAS un-American. In other words, promoting an agenda of legalized discrimination is un-American, and that's what Prop 8 was.
Anytime any citizen or group of citizens is treated as second class, deprived of basic liberties (of which the freedom to enter into a marriage contract with the person they wish - who is also able to enter into a contract) there is NO higher concern our government can/should have. Freedom and equality lay at the foundation of everything that makes our country great.
Holy crap -- we actually agree on something for once.